planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:00 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Canada 2019: Vettel Penalty
As per the rules, the penalty is correct and justified 29%  29%  [ 29 ]
As per the rules, the penalty is correct, but it seems harsh and shouldn't have been awarded 12%  12%  [ 12 ]
As per the rules, the penalty is correct. It seems harsh but it's consistent and that's what has been asked for 25%  25%  [ 25 ]
Penalty not justified at all, Vettel had no way to comply with what the rules state 29%  29%  [ 29 ]
Problem is the rules, not the stewards 4%  4%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 99
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7812
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I take your point with that, the podium presentation and interviews are really more important for the tv audience.

You had no views on the Verstappen incident because perhaps you were not really that interested but that would fall in this remit of yours that the stewards had no right to penalise him until they had interviewed him after the race.

It kind of doesn't surprise that people are only really interested in certain incidents being dealt with in a certain way that may be more important to them for one reason or another.
Of course I was interested in the Verstappen/Räikkönen incident, Kimi being one of the few drivers who interest me. At the time I believe I felt the penalty was correct, but I don't seem to have reacted to it on the race thread. Verstappen causing an accident with Vettel was a discussion I entered into. (Fully Verstappen's fault in my view.)

I'm not sure where you got the idea I believe the stewards had no right to penalise a driver until they have interviewed him after the race. That is not my point of view; the stewards definitely have the right to act as they have. I'm sure you will have read that I emphasize respect for the stewards' verdicts.

The two incidents are only superficially similar. Those who believe they are near-identical and consequently the recent Vettel penalty is explained and can only result in a penalty should consider things more carefully.
In Japan the driver error led to the incident, while in Canada controlling a loss of control led to it. In the steward reports of both incidents, this distinction isn't made, which surprises me. Which is also why I'm interested in what Ferrari will use in their defence of Vettel.

Sorry to barge in, but isn't a loss of control essentially an error?
That depends. The oversteer moment may or may not have been because of driver error, in that it wasn't an error of Vettel's if the backmarker's car led to it. Going over the grass is what caused loss of control, leading to the amount of track needed to regain control.

I see, I forgot the backmarker's involvement. It is however the very first incident, the crowding is the real issue and I can't see (at the moment) how they will escape this.
As I read things, it wholly depends on whether it was deliberate, as the stewards decided, or not. Which presumably is where more complete information comes into it.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1458
Location: UK
For the "right to review" Ferrari need new evidence, seems they have this but are refusing to share it, “Due to the sensitivity of the matter we are not giving any further details,".

I have to say I'm not sure what that means? I would have thought they needed fresh facts or photographic evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6869
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

Sorry to barge in, but isn't a loss of control essentially an error?
That depends. The oversteer moment may or may not have been because of driver error, in that it wasn't an error of Vettel's if the backmarker's car led to it. Going over the grass is what caused loss of control, leading to the amount of track needed to regain control.

Sorry Fiki but this is absurd. A loss of downforce while following another car is to be expected in F1. Vettel has been racing in F1 for 13 years and is well aware of what happens when you get in close behind another car. The fact that he was too close to the limit at a part of the circuit where it wasn't even crucial (turn 3 is not generally an overtaking opportunity) is most certainly an error. The backmarker didn't make contact with him; he simply got it wrong there and went off the circuit. That's a driver error, full stop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:15 am
Posts: 143
Imagine trying to argue that a 4 x WDC driver didn't have a driver error because of oversteer but arguing that he doesn't know the effects of dirty air (whilst ignoring Hamilton was closer to Vettel than Vettel was to any back markers)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7812
Location: Belgium
Junglist wrote:
Imagine trying to argue that a 4 x WDC driver didn't have a driver error because of oversteer but arguing that he doesn't know the effects of dirty air (whilst ignoring Hamilton was closer to Vettel than Vettel was to any back markers)
You've got the wrong end of the stick if you think that's what I was doing.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 1188
Location: Stratford
Option or Prime wrote:
For the "right to review" Ferrari need new evidence, seems they have this but are refusing to share it, “Due to the sensitivity of the matter we are not giving any further details,".

I have to say I'm not sure what that means? I would have thought they needed fresh facts or photographic evidence.


Probably just means that they aren't making their new evidence public until they have to and will only share with the FIA for the right of review.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1458
Location: UK
JN23 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
For the "right to review" Ferrari need new evidence, seems they have this but are refusing to share it, “Due to the sensitivity of the matter we are not giving any further details,".

I have to say I'm not sure what that means? I would have thought they needed fresh facts or photographic evidence.


Probably just means that they aren't making their new evidence public until they have to and will only share with the FIA for the right of review.


Seems reasonable, I just wondered about the phrase "Due to the sensitivity" why would it be sensitive unless it involves Mercedes in some way?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2527
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Blimey, we really are more knowledgeable about how to drive an F1 car than the majority of ex F1 drivers who have commented on this issue.


This appeal to authority nonsense is so ridiculous. Not all these so called authority figures agree. Some say penalty some say not.

You do realise that the stewards who made the decision have all the information? It's not just a few zealots on a forum.asking for a penalty... Most people here agree that the penalty was acceptable, ex-drivers too and the stewards

Ex drivers is clearly false, the majority of ex drivers that have spoken out on the issue have said it shouldn't be a penalty as well I'm sure you know.


And there are equally ex drivers who disagree and say it was a penalty... So what is the point in this ridiculous attempt to appeal.to authority when in fact the ultimate authority deemed it a penalty. As has already been mentioned as well the whole reason for that rule in the first place was because of demand for it from the drivers themselves


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1458
Location: UK
That is a point often overlooked, my point that I've mentioned above and I'll repeat to save people looking ifs that two os the most recent drivers in F1 support the penalty.

We don't have any idea what current F1 driver's opinions are though? except for 2 of them of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7942
Option or Prime wrote:
That is a point often overlooked, my point that I've mentioned above and I'll repeat to save people looking ifs that two os the most recent drivers in F1 support the penalty.

We don't have any idea what current F1 driver's opinions are though? except for 2 of them of course.

I imagine the question will get put to all of them in the conference tomorrow. I'd say arguably 3: Vettel, Hamilton and Ricciardo. Though tbh Hamilton has been pretty diplomatic and non committal on what he thought about it unless I've missed something.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1395
Apropos of nothing, I think my pet idea of replacing 5 second penalties with a slow/penalty lane on track (so it could have been applied in race with immediate and directly felt effects) would have made things slightly better.

Whether you agree with the penalty or not, I think part of the problem is having a common penalty that can effect the race result applied post race as a matter of course. That should be avoided wherever possible.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7812
Location: Belgium
FormulaFun wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Blimey, we really are more knowledgeable about how to drive an F1 car than the majority of ex F1 drivers who have commented on this issue.


This appeal to authority nonsense is so ridiculous. Not all these so called authority figures agree. Some say penalty some say not.

You do realise that the stewards who made the decision have all the information? It's not just a few zealots on a forum.asking for a penalty... Most people here agree that the penalty was acceptable, ex-drivers too and the stewards

Ex drivers is clearly false, the majority of ex drivers that have spoken out on the issue have said it shouldn't be a penalty as well I'm sure you know.


And there are equally ex drivers who disagree and say it was a penalty... So what is the point in this ridiculous attempt to appeal.to authority when in fact the ultimate authority deemed it a penalty. As has already been mentioned as well the whole reason for that rule in the first place was because of demand for it from the drivers themselves
Well, as the stewards themselves note in their official report, they aren't the ultimate authority...
So I'm rather puzzled why you call something their report specifically mentions ridiculous.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:18 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7696
Option or Prime wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
For the "right to review" Ferrari need new evidence, seems they have this but are refusing to share it, “Due to the sensitivity of the matter we are not giving any further details,".

I have to say I'm not sure what that means? I would have thought they needed fresh facts or photographic evidence.


Probably just means that they aren't making their new evidence public until they have to and will only share with the FIA for the right of review.


Seems reasonable, I just wondered about the phrase "Due to the sensitivity" why would it be sensitive unless it involves Mercedes in some way?


Yeah, this puzzled me too. Unless they are going to show that Mercedes had a flexi-wing or something illegal in their car and Hamilton should be disqualified ( :D ), then I do not know what this could be that is deemed so sensitive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2912
Option or Prime wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
For the "right to review" Ferrari need new evidence, seems they have this but are refusing to share it, “Due to the sensitivity of the matter we are not giving any further details,".

I have to say I'm not sure what that means? I would have thought they needed fresh facts or photographic evidence.


Probably just means that they aren't making their new evidence public until they have to and will only share with the FIA for the right of review.


Seems reasonable, I just wondered about the phrase "Due to the sensitivity" why would it be sensitive unless it involves Mercedes in some way?

Perhaps it's because the penalty incident has polarised opinion? That the whole issue is a sensitive subject and Ferrari have no wish to stir the pot up further before discussing with the authorities.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1458
Location: UK
They will meet Friday, 13.15 BST so we won't have to wait long to find out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:28 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7696
Option or Prime wrote:
They will meet Friday, 13.15 BST so we won't have to wait long to find out.

What a way to start the next GP!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7812
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
They will meet Friday, 13.15 BST so we won't have to wait long to find out.

What a way to start the next GP!
It's not the first time this happens, so I don't see it as a 'big deal'. I am very interested in this affair.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2961
tootsie323 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
For the "right to review" Ferrari need new evidence, seems they have this but are refusing to share it, “Due to the sensitivity of the matter we are not giving any further details,".

I have to say I'm not sure what that means? I would have thought they needed fresh facts or photographic evidence.


Probably just means that they aren't making their new evidence public until they have to and will only share with the FIA for the right of review.


Seems reasonable, I just wondered about the phrase "Due to the sensitivity" why would it be sensitive unless it involves Mercedes in some way?

Perhaps it's because the penalty incident has polarised opinion? That the whole issue is a sensitive subject and Ferrari have no wish to stir the pot up further before discussing with the authorities.


Sensitive as they intend turning up with Mekies; the ex FIA man (the one who didnt need gardening leave) in tow. And wasn't one of his pre-Ferrari duties Deputy Race Director and in line to replace Charlie?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1458
Location: UK
shoot999 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
For the "right to review" Ferrari need new evidence, seems they have this but are refusing to share it, “Due to the sensitivity of the matter we are not giving any further details,".

I have to say I'm not sure what that means? I would have thought they needed fresh facts or photographic evidence.


Probably just means that they aren't making their new evidence public until they have to and will only share with the FIA for the right of review.


Seems reasonable, I just wondered about the phrase "Due to the sensitivity" why would it be sensitive unless it involves Mercedes in some way?

Perhaps it's because the penalty incident has polarised opinion? That the whole issue is a sensitive subject and Ferrari have no wish to stir the pot up further before discussing with the authorities.


Sensitive as they intend turning up with Mekies; the ex FIA man (the one who didnt need gardening leave) in tow. And wasn't one of his pre-Ferrari duties Deputy Race Director and in line to replace Charlie?


So what will Laurent Mekies do then that is relevant to the incident and new evidence?

Doesn't this just distract Vettel who might have to appear in that case? I'm not casting doubt on your comment Shoot, just all a bit dramatic. But then I suppose Italy has a flair for the arts doesn't it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:22 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7696
Option or Prime wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
JN23 wrote:

Probably just means that they aren't making their new evidence public until they have to and will only share with the FIA for the right of review.


Seems reasonable, I just wondered about the phrase "Due to the sensitivity" why would it be sensitive unless it involves Mercedes in some way?

Perhaps it's because the penalty incident has polarised opinion? That the whole issue is a sensitive subject and Ferrari have no wish to stir the pot up further before discussing with the authorities.


Sensitive as they intend turning up with Mekies; the ex FIA man (the one who didnt need gardening leave) in tow. And wasn't one of his pre-Ferrari duties Deputy Race Director and in line to replace Charlie?


So what will Laurent Mekies do then that is relevant to the incident and new evidence?

Doesn't this just distract Vettel who might have to appear in that case? I'm not casting doubt on your comment Shoot, just all a bit dramatic. But then I suppose Italy has a flair for the arts doesn't it.

Is there a source for that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2527
Fiki wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Blimey, we really are more knowledgeable about how to drive an F1 car than the majority of ex F1 drivers who have commented on this issue.


This appeal to authority nonsense is so ridiculous. Not all these so called authority figures agree. Some say penalty some say not.

You do realise that the stewards who made the decision have all the information? It's not just a few zealots on a forum.asking for a penalty... Most people here agree that the penalty was acceptable, ex-drivers too and the stewards

Ex drivers is clearly false, the majority of ex drivers that have spoken out on the issue have said it shouldn't be a penalty as well I'm sure you know.


And there are equally ex drivers who disagree and say it was a penalty... So what is the point in this ridiculous attempt to appeal.to authority when in fact the ultimate authority deemed it a penalty. As has already been mentioned as well the whole reason for that rule in the first place was because of demand for it from the drivers themselves
Well, as the stewards themselves note in their official report, they aren't the ultimate authority...
So I'm rather puzzled why you call something their report specifically mentions ridiculous.


I think you've become confused... I'm not appealing to a higher authority, I am literally saying don't do that and made that point to show how stupid it is


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7812
Location: Belgium
FormulaFun wrote:
Fiki wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
This appeal to authority nonsense is so ridiculous. Not all these so called authority figures agree. Some say penalty some say not.

You do realise that the stewards who made the decision have all the information? It's not just a few zealots on a forum.asking for a penalty... Most people here agree that the penalty was acceptable, ex-drivers too and the stewards

Ex drivers is clearly false, the majority of ex drivers that have spoken out on the issue have said it shouldn't be a penalty as well I'm sure you know.


And there are equally ex drivers who disagree and say it was a penalty... So what is the point in this ridiculous attempt to appeal.to authority when in fact the ultimate authority deemed it a penalty. As has already been mentioned as well the whole reason for that rule in the first place was because of demand for it from the drivers themselves
Well, as the stewards themselves note in their official report, they aren't the ultimate authority...
So I'm rather puzzled why you call something their report specifically mentions ridiculous.


I think you've become confused... I'm not appealing to a higher authority, I am literally saying don't do that and made that point to show how stupid it is
I didn't say you were appealing to a higher authority... I pointed out to you that the stewards aren't the highest authority.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 1188
Location: Stratford
Option or Prime wrote:
They will meet Friday, 13.15 BST so we won't have to wait long to find out.


Am I right in saying all that tomorrow's meeting is the stewards deciding whether Ferrari will actually be able to have a right to review? If they say no, then case closed and if they say yes, the right to review takes place some other time?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2961
Siao7 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
shoot999 wrote:

Sensitive as they intend turning up with Mekies; the ex FIA man (the one who didnt need gardening leave) in tow. And wasn't one of his pre-Ferrari duties Deputy Race Director and in line to replace Charlie?


So what will Laurent Mekies do then that is relevant to the incident and new evidence?





Doesn't this just distract Vettel who might have to appear in that case? I'm not casting doubt on your comment Shoot, just all a bit dramatic. But then I suppose Italy has a flair for the arts doesn't it.

Is there a source for that?


Rencken. Which usually means it'll eventually come up on Racefans

and Reuters


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:45 pm
Posts: 115
My guess is that they are going to try to prove intent or not. The "sensitive" nature probably involves their telemetry data. They would want to provide that in it's raw form and they don't want anyone else seeing it as collected.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1458
Location: UK
JN23 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
They will meet Friday, 13.15 BST so we won't have to wait long to find out.


Am I right in saying all that tomorrow's meeting is the stewards deciding whether Ferrari will actually be able to have a right to review? If they say no, then case closed and if they say yes, the right to review takes place some other time?


"Officials will consider whether Ferrari has "significant" new evidence.

If they judge that Ferrari's submission meets that standard, stewards will then consider whether that justifies overturning the penalty.

"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48706142

As I read it they will deal with it then, though its not totally clear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 1188
Location: Stratford
Option or Prime wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
They will meet Friday, 13.15 BST so we won't have to wait long to find out.


Am I right in saying all that tomorrow's meeting is the stewards deciding whether Ferrari will actually be able to have a right to review? If they say no, then case closed and if they say yes, the right to review takes place some other time?


"Officials will consider whether Ferrari has "significant" new evidence.

If they judge that Ferrari's submission meets that standard, stewards will then consider whether that justifies overturning the penalty.

"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48706142

As I read it they will deal with it then, though its not totally clear.


Yeah that isn't particularly clear.

This sky article says: Should a formal reviewed be called, the regulations add: "These stewards or, failing this, those designated by the FIA, must meet (in person or by other means) on a date agreed amongst themselves, summoning the party or parties concerned to hear any relevant explanations and to judge in the light of the facts and elements brought before them."

I guess they could agree the date to be tomorrow, although tomorrow's meeting is taking place 45 minutes before the start of FP2, that doesn't leave much time.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -gp-friday


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2527
Fiki wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Fiki wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Ex drivers is clearly false, the majority of ex drivers that have spoken out on the issue have said it shouldn't be a penalty as well I'm sure you know.


And there are equally ex drivers who disagree and say it was a penalty... So what is the point in this ridiculous attempt to appeal.to authority when in fact the ultimate authority deemed it a penalty. As has already been mentioned as well the whole reason for that rule in the first place was because of demand for it from the drivers themselves
Well, as the stewards themselves note in their official report, they aren't the ultimate authority...
So I'm rather puzzled why you call something their report specifically mentions ridiculous.


I think you've become confused... I'm not appealing to a higher authority, I am literally saying don't do that and made that point to show how stupid it is
I didn't say you were appealing to a higher authority... I pointed out to you that the stewards aren't the highest authority.


I was just making a point that there's always a higher authority to appeal to... Ex-drivers aren't ultimate authority either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6869
Option or Prime wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
They will meet Friday, 13.15 BST so we won't have to wait long to find out.


Am I right in saying all that tomorrow's meeting is the stewards deciding whether Ferrari will actually be able to have a right to review? If they say no, then case closed and if they say yes, the right to review takes place some other time?


"Officials will consider whether Ferrari has "significant" new evidence.

If they judge that Ferrari's submission meets that standard, stewards will then consider whether that justifies overturning the penalty.

"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48706142

As I read it they will deal with it then, though its not totally clear.

I would genuinely be shocked if they overturned that penalty. Only because the penalty had a direct impact on how the rest of the race played out. Hamilton knew he didn't need to actually overtake Vettel on the track in order to win. Without the penalty, the situation would have been completely different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32779
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I may be wrong, but I believe every event requires a ticket. So, just because you had tickets for an event at the Olympics, that doesn't mean you will have tickets for an event the following day if that is when the medals are being awarded.
:D I can understand people wanting to get on their way home soon after the race, but I don't subscribe to the view that the podium ceremony is more important than a correct result to the race. And if Francorchamps is anything to go by, staying at the track for a while longer is preferable to being stuck in traffic jams for hours. (Provided you stock up on drinks and food before the stalls close.)

People don't buy tickets for the awards ceremonies though and you have multiple award ceremonies which take about 5 minutes

The F1 podium ceremony is very much part of the event along with interviews, you can't be specific about the rights of drivers depending on were they finish, there might be an incident between 3rd and 4th place driver so we get into the realms of multiple delays.

Verstappen for instance should have been interviewed at Monaco because it was viewed that he deliberately squeezed Bottas in the pitlane causing a collision, strange that this conversation didn't take place after that race?
Race fans don't buy tickets for the podium ceremony either. At Francorchamps, you wouldn't even be able to get to the podium area via the track in time, if you wanted to get there from most of the grandstands. But if there were a delay for the stewards' investigations, perhaps.... :D And a few years ago I was in the grandstand between the finish line and La Source, so I could see the drivers in the distance, plus the TV screen. But once Martin Brundle started interviewing the drivers, a helicopter kept flying up and down the finish straight. So I couldn't even understand what was said, even through the PA system. The fans at home could, I'm sure.
Still, none of all this changes my view that a correct result is what is needed, and if that takes some time, so be it.

I didn't really follow the Verstappen Monaco incident, but if I were a driver who had been investigated and given a penalty that was incorrect in my view, I would go and see the stewards afterwards, yes. I don't know what Max thought, or whether he cared. But going to see them instead of being summoned would make for a nice change, wouldn't you think?

I take your point with that, the podium presentation and interviews are really more important for the tv audience.

You had no views on the Verstappen incident because perhaps you were not really that interested but that would fall in this remit of yours that the stewards had no right to penalise him until they had interviewed him after the race.

It kind of doesn't surprise that people are only really interested in certain incidents being dealt with in a certain way that may be more important to them for one reason or another.
Of course I was interested in the Verstappen/Räikkönen incident, Kimi being one of the few drivers who interest me. At the time I believe I felt the penalty was correct, but I don't seem to have reacted to it on the race thread. Verstappen causing an accident with Vettel was a discussion I entered into. (Fully Verstappen's fault in my view.)

I'm not sure where you got the idea I believe the stewards had no right to penalise a driver until they have interviewed him after the race. That is not my point of view; the stewards definitely have the right to act as they have. I'm sure you will have read that I emphasize respect for the stewards' verdicts.

The two incidents are only superficially similar. Those who believe they are near-identical and consequently the recent Vettel penalty is explained and can only result in a penalty should consider things more carefully.
In Japan the driver error led to the incident, while in Canada controlling a loss of control led to it. In the steward reports of both incidents, this distinction isn't made, which surprises me. Which is also why I'm interested in what Ferrari will use in their defence of Vettel.

Fair enough you seem to have taken a step back regarding the stewards, Vettel clearly also made a driving error but that in itself is irrelevant to the issue of returning to the track safely.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place


Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32779
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Of course I was interested in the Verstappen/Räikkönen incident, Kimi being one of the few drivers who interest me. At the time I believe I felt the penalty was correct, but I don't seem to have reacted to it on the race thread. Verstappen causing an accident with Vettel was a discussion I entered into. (Fully Verstappen's fault in my view.)

I'm not sure where you got the idea I believe the stewards had no right to penalise a driver until they have interviewed him after the race. That is not my point of view; the stewards definitely have the right to act as they have. I'm sure you will have read that I emphasize respect for the stewards' verdicts.

The two incidents are only superficially similar. Those who believe they are near-identical and consequently the recent Vettel penalty is explained and can only result in a penalty should consider things more carefully.
In Japan the driver error led to the incident, while in Canada controlling a loss of control led to it. In the steward reports of both incidents, this distinction isn't made, which surprises me. Which is also why I'm interested in what Ferrari will use in their defence of Vettel.

Sorry to barge in, but isn't a loss of control essentially an error?
That depends. The oversteer moment may or may not have been because of driver error, in that it wasn't an error of Vettel's if the backmarker's car led to it. Going over the grass is what caused loss of control, leading to the amount of track needed to regain control.

I see, I forgot the backmarker's involvement. It is however the very first incident, the crowding is the real issue and I can't see (at the moment) how they will escape this.
As I read things, it wholly depends on whether it was deliberate, as the stewards decided, or not. Which presumably is where more complete information comes into it.

The stewards do seem to have gone down that path which I don't really understand in regards to returning to the track safely, it's either safe or it isn't?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place


Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32779
wolfticket wrote:
Apropos of nothing, I think my pet idea of replacing 5 second penalties with a slow/penalty lane on track (so it could have been applied in race with immediate and directly felt effects) would have made things slightly better.

Whether you agree with the penalty or not, I think part of the problem is having a common penalty that can effect the race result applied post race as a matter of course. That should be avoided wherever possible.

I would prefer that than the 5 second penalty, one of the problems I have with the 5 second penalty is that it allows a driver to continue racing in a false position in the race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place


Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32779
sandman1347 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
They will meet Friday, 13.15 BST so we won't have to wait long to find out.


Am I right in saying all that tomorrow's meeting is the stewards deciding whether Ferrari will actually be able to have a right to review? If they say no, then case closed and if they say yes, the right to review takes place some other time?


"Officials will consider whether Ferrari has "significant" new evidence.

If they judge that Ferrari's submission meets that standard, stewards will then consider whether that justifies overturning the penalty.

"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48706142

As I read it they will deal with it then, though its not totally clear.

I would genuinely be shocked if they overturned that penalty. Only because the penalty had a direct impact on how the rest of the race played out. Hamilton knew he didn't need to actually overtake Vettel on the track in order to win. Without the penalty, the situation would have been completely different.

I'm sure I read that you can't overturn a 5 second penalty?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place


Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 1198
Location: Kansas
wolfticket wrote:
Apropos of nothing, I think my pet idea of replacing 5 second penalties with a slow/penalty lane on track (so it could have been applied in race with immediate and directly felt effects) would have made things slightly better.

Whether you agree with the penalty or not, I think part of the problem is having a common penalty that can effect the race result applied post race as a matter of course. That should be avoided wherever possible.

Would have meant that Leclerc would have known that he was within striking distance of Vettel. OTOH he might have tried a pass on an angry Seb and come to grief.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:09 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7696
shoot999 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
shoot999 wrote:

Sensitive as they intend turning up with Mekies; the ex FIA man (the one who didnt need gardening leave) in tow. And wasn't one of his pre-Ferrari duties Deputy Race Director and in line to replace Charlie?


So what will Laurent Mekies do then that is relevant to the incident and new evidence?





Doesn't this just distract Vettel who might have to appear in that case? I'm not casting doubt on your comment Shoot, just all a bit dramatic. But then I suppose Italy has a flair for the arts doesn't it.

Is there a source for that?


Rencken. Which usually means it'll eventually come up on Racefans

and Reuters


Ah, thank you shoot999!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 10280
Location: Ireland
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
They will meet Friday, 13.15 BST so we won't have to wait long to find out.


Am I right in saying all that tomorrow's meeting is the stewards deciding whether Ferrari will actually be able to have a right to review? If they say no, then case closed and if they say yes, the right to review takes place some other time?


"Officials will consider whether Ferrari has "significant" new evidence.

If they judge that Ferrari's submission meets that standard, stewards will then consider whether that justifies overturning the penalty.

"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48706142

As I read it they will deal with it then, though its not totally clear.

I would genuinely be shocked if they overturned that penalty. Only because the penalty had a direct impact on how the rest of the race played out. Hamilton knew he didn't need to actually overtake Vettel on the track in order to win. Without the penalty, the situation would have been completely different.

I'm sure I read that you can't overturn a 5 second penalty?

You couldn't issue team orders in 2010 and get away with it either...

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:39 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7696
mcdo wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
JN23 wrote:

Am I right in saying all that tomorrow's meeting is the stewards deciding whether Ferrari will actually be able to have a right to review? If they say no, then case closed and if they say yes, the right to review takes place some other time?


"Officials will consider whether Ferrari has "significant" new evidence.

If they judge that Ferrari's submission meets that standard, stewards will then consider whether that justifies overturning the penalty.

"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48706142

As I read it they will deal with it then, though its not totally clear.

I would genuinely be shocked if they overturned that penalty. Only because the penalty had a direct impact on how the rest of the race played out. Hamilton knew he didn't need to actually overtake Vettel on the track in order to win. Without the penalty, the situation would have been completely different.

I'm sure I read that you can't overturn a 5 second penalty?

You couldn't issue team orders in 2010 and get away with it either...

Well, they didn't. Ferrari got fined for the German GP, didn't they?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7812
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
People don't buy tickets for the awards ceremonies though and you have multiple award ceremonies which take about 5 minutes

The F1 podium ceremony is very much part of the event along with interviews, you can't be specific about the rights of drivers depending on were they finish, there might be an incident between 3rd and 4th place driver so we get into the realms of multiple delays.

Verstappen for instance should have been interviewed at Monaco because it was viewed that he deliberately squeezed Bottas in the pitlane causing a collision, strange that this conversation didn't take place after that race?
Race fans don't buy tickets for the podium ceremony either. At Francorchamps, you wouldn't even be able to get to the podium area via the track in time, if you wanted to get there from most of the grandstands. But if there were a delay for the stewards' investigations, perhaps.... :D And a few years ago I was in the grandstand between the finish line and La Source, so I could see the drivers in the distance, plus the TV screen. But once Martin Brundle started interviewing the drivers, a helicopter kept flying up and down the finish straight. So I couldn't even understand what was said, even through the PA system. The fans at home could, I'm sure.
Still, none of all this changes my view that a correct result is what is needed, and if that takes some time, so be it.

I didn't really follow the Verstappen Monaco incident, but if I were a driver who had been investigated and given a penalty that was incorrect in my view, I would go and see the stewards afterwards, yes. I don't know what Max thought, or whether he cared. But going to see them instead of being summoned would make for a nice change, wouldn't you think?

I take your point with that, the podium presentation and interviews are really more important for the tv audience.

You had no views on the Verstappen incident because perhaps you were not really that interested but that would fall in this remit of yours that the stewards had no right to penalise him until they had interviewed him after the race.

It kind of doesn't surprise that people are only really interested in certain incidents being dealt with in a certain way that may be more important to them for one reason or another.
Of course I was interested in the Verstappen/Räikkönen incident, Kimi being one of the few drivers who interest me. At the time I believe I felt the penalty was correct, but I don't seem to have reacted to it on the race thread. Verstappen causing an accident with Vettel was a discussion I entered into. (Fully Verstappen's fault in my view.)

I'm not sure where you got the idea I believe the stewards had no right to penalise a driver until they have interviewed him after the race. That is not my point of view; the stewards definitely have the right to act as they have. I'm sure you will have read that I emphasize respect for the stewards' verdicts.

The two incidents are only superficially similar. Those who believe they are near-identical and consequently the recent Vettel penalty is explained and can only result in a penalty should consider things more carefully.
In Japan the driver error led to the incident, while in Canada controlling a loss of control led to it. In the steward reports of both incidents, this distinction isn't made, which surprises me. Which is also why I'm interested in what Ferrari will use in their defence of Vettel.

Fair enough you seem to have taken a step back regarding the stewards, Vettel clearly also made a driving error but that in itself is irrelevant to the issue of returning to the track safely.
No, I didn't take a step back regarding the stewards. My view is that it would have been better to issue a penalty after speaking to the driver(s) about it, after the race. That would not have stopped the racing the way it did now, and it would not preclude demoting Vettel if he would still have been found guilty. But they can definitely issue the penalty they did, I never claimed they couldn't.

I don't think the basis for the penalty is whether he re-joined unsafely, but whether he deliberately crowded Hamilton off the track. If I'm right, then all it comes down to, is proving Vettel had regained full control of the vehicle before crowding Hamilton.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm
Posts: 563
sandman1347 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
They will meet Friday, 13.15 BST so we won't have to wait long to find out.


Am I right in saying all that tomorrow's meeting is the stewards deciding whether Ferrari will actually be able to have a right to review? If they say no, then case closed and if they say yes, the right to review takes place some other time?


"Officials will consider whether Ferrari has "significant" new evidence.

If they judge that Ferrari's submission meets that standard, stewards will then consider whether that justifies overturning the penalty.

"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48706142

As I read it they will deal with it then, though its not totally clear.

I would genuinely be shocked if they overturned that penalty. Only because the penalty had a direct impact on how the rest of the race played out. Hamilton knew he didn't need to actually overtake Vettel on the track in order to win. Without the penalty, the situation would have been completely different.


Yeah that's the issue and apparantly Mercedes are already preparing a defence along the lines of 'We drove a more cautious strategy as a result of the penalty.'

I doubt there is any room in the rules for a shared win where both drivers get 22 points each or something, so I'm really not sure how they will deal with this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16034
BMWSauber84 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
They will meet Friday, 13.15 BST so we won't have to wait long to find out.


Am I right in saying all that tomorrow's meeting is the stewards deciding whether Ferrari will actually be able to have a right to review? If they say no, then case closed and if they say yes, the right to review takes place some other time?


"Officials will consider whether Ferrari has "significant" new evidence.

If they judge that Ferrari's submission meets that standard, stewards will then consider whether that justifies overturning the penalty.

"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48706142

As I read it they will deal with it then, though its not totally clear.

I would genuinely be shocked if they overturned that penalty. Only because the penalty had a direct impact on how the rest of the race played out. Hamilton knew he didn't need to actually overtake Vettel on the track in order to win. Without the penalty, the situation would have been completely different.


Yeah that's the issue and apparantly Mercedes are already preparing a defence along the lines of 'We drove a more cautious strategy as a result of the penalty.'

I doubt there is any room in the rules for a shared win where both drivers get 22 points each or something, so I'm really not sure how they will deal with this.


It's not possible to rescind the penalty for that reason. Even if Ferrari could get the stewards to publicly state they made a mistake the race result won't change. The only thing they can do is remove the penalty points.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Siao7, Sutton, UnlikeUday and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group